OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: Fantasies

Just to inform you that we (=SWIFT) are currently (for the moment only internally, but I guess soon it will become public)
generating automatically swiftML Schema's based on the same UML business models from which we are also generating swiftML DTD's.
The whole idea being that these syntax independent business models will be the basis for an interoperable business standard.
I entirely agree that there is no such magic thing that does the automatic mapping for you. Semantic mapping cannot be done
But having only one business model (in UML) in which several syntaxes map into simplifies the whole mapping issue a lot since
* for each new syntax, you only have to do the semantic mapping once (from the new syntax to the syntax independent business model
in UML)
* you don't have to know/understand 'another' syntax
* updates/semantic/syntactic changes only have to be done once.

The idea being that existing solutions are reverse engineered into the UML business model using traceability links. These
traceablility links are the actual semantic mapping into the business model.

Once established, THEN you can automatically (or semi-automatically) generate mapping tables from one syntax to another.
In this way, each specific solution can plug in to the business model. And of course, the pre-condition is that the messages MUST be
semantically the same.

Currently there is an initiative going on in ISO called ISO/TC68/WG10 in which we are actively participating, which is looking into
the conversion of the ISO15022 securities standard into ISO XML based on a UML business repository, and how other financial
securities standards (FIX-ML, DTCC, FpML, etc...) can plug-in to that solution. So yes there one of the goals is, at the end, to
generate mapping tables.

I hope this helps

"William J. Kammerer" wrote:

> Arofan Gregory says "contextual definition of core components, and of
> modelling those core components" will allow us "to do things that are
> impossible today, such as auto-generate mappings between syntaxes or
> vocabularies, or to automatically determine where my document
> definitions and yours disagree, even though we may have used different
> local names for the same bits of data."
> Dear Arofan:
> Oh, come off it!  When pigs fly, we will.  If you could do that, then
> we'd just dispense with standards altogether, and just model both
> end-points so they could "talk" to one another.
> Heck, I haven't even yet seen anyone take a UML data model and generate
> schemas from it -  and that should be a lot simpler.  People tried and
> tried to come up with semantic mappings between X12 and EDIFACT and
> never did - so I wouldn't hold my breath now waiting for this
> mumbo-jumbo of auto-transforming ebXML core components into EDIFACT, or
> vice-versa.
> William J. Kammerer
> 4950 Blazer Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "accelerating time-to-trade"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
org:;Standards Automation
title:Lead Analyst
fn:Kris Ketels

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC